News:

In the next few days, I will convert the Forum to a new Forum Software.PLEASE SAVE YOUR OLD PRIVATE MESSAGES. IF YOU STILL NEED THEM AND THEN DELETE THEM, AS THE PRIVATE MESSAGES WILL NOT BE CONVERTED TO THE NEW FORUM AND WILL BE LOST THEN !Please still a bit patience, I still must test a few things before the conversion will be taking place.Many thanks for your help. Regards, Stefan Hartmann ( Admin)

To my mind the purpose of philosophy, is that the individual practitioner shall arrive at ..... understanding the limitations of reason. Even at the very beginnings of the undertaking to scientifically examine this world, we find implications of an infinity and an eternity all around us, and that we are not truly separate from that eternity.

Centuries ago, Galileo pondered action at distance. ................................................................................................. Speaking only for myself Newton's laws of motion have always seemed incomplete, incorrect, contradictory or simply not possible .... though useful.... Within the texts of the Magnets Motion and Measurement book, part 1, I make the following statement as well as other paraphrasing / similar statements.

"An object at rest does not begin to move at some given speed. That object must accelerate in order to reach a given speed."... An object at rest, when it at first begins to accelerate, must begin to move at SOME speed.

If it at first begins to move, what is that speed at which it first moves ?

Does it accelerate in order to reach that speed ?

That speed, must be greater than zero, if it is any speed at all.

Can it begin to move at some speed, any speed, even if that speed is infinitely near to zerowith out having accelerated from some other lesser speed ? Does an accelerating object at first begin to move at some infinitesimally small speed withinsome infinitesimally small amount of time, and does it reach that speed absolutely instantaneously and without acceleration ?

Do objects begin their accelerations via quantum leaps ?... Even physic's most exotic "particles", are I think, more common even than dirt.

Is it or is it not fact that .... the ordinary objects around us are constantly transcending time and space at the sub atomic particle level ?

Is it or is it not a fact that ....the basis for all events which we observe and from which we take the experiences , by which define our own selves, are some how transcendent of time even though in that transcendence, they are the very basis for time ?... Peace on Earth good will toward men floor

while the rest of the universe is a linear motion,it seem then, the universe both approaches, and speeds away some unknown speed.

May be 1/C2 , If light speed is the absolute maximum.

If the rest of the universe is in a rotational motion, the closer one is to its center,the slower any thing nearby is moving.................................................But in terms of.....Picturing an acceleration within a local inertial reference frame....

An object which begins to move from a state of rest, must BEGIN to move at SOME speed.And it seems to me that, THAT speed must be accelerated to, absolutely instantaneously, even ifTHAT speed is a very slow one.

This (from my perspective) is one reason, why newtons laws remain as only approximations.Valid in the macro world, and at RELATIVE speeds.... which are much less than the speed of light.

Yes, we don't know of any thing which can be defined as "motionless, by any universal absolute". howeverI cannot say either, that it can or "It cannot be motionless, by any universal absolute." butI doesn't matter, which context ..... "universal" or within a local reference frame.It doesn't matter, which context ...... an absolute / universal speed of zero or a relative speed of zero The essence of my statements remain unchanged.

It doesn't even matter, If I had context-ed the acceleration as beginning from some initial value (X),while within some specific frame of reference............. rather than as (zero) while within some specific frame of reference. The essence of my statements remain unchanged.

Except for some uncertainties I have about the math processes ... I feel pretty satisfied with these lasteditions. I have access to a Berkeley mathematics (PHD) (for a fee would check my work)I would rather keep it in house and for free ... if there is a someone, who would enjoy checking my work for free (doesn't require a PHD).